Posts

Monday, February 13, 2012

Science Literacy in the 21st Century

Recent polls
on American competitiveness foretell of a future America losing its position as a
global leader in scientific research and development, and in its production of
science and engineering graduates. This should be no surprise. Nearly 20% of people polled feel that science
classes were irrelevant to students not
pursuing science as a career, and more than 50% avoiding science as a career
because they felt it would be too
difficult or uninteresting. Is there a relationship between the failure of science
education to capture our collective imagination and sense of wonder, and our
loss of global competitiveness? If so, does it mean that imbibing students with
a dose of scientific literacy will
positively impact our social science-collective and affect our global
competitiveness? Are the two even related?

I am
skeptical of aspirations of science literacy. I don’t believe our decision
makers, media and businesses want a
scientifically literate populous. The benefits from a science-illiterate populous are too great. When
opposing political talking heads present conflicting sides of a scientific
argument—global warming for example—a scientifically-literate populous would
never tolerate the charade of “equal weight”. Consider the recent eye-health
vitamins offered by Bausch & Lomb. They have decided that independent, scientific
support for the purported claims of their product is no longer necessary. They
have weighed short-term corporate profit against the potential long-term
damaged from a loss of scientific credibility and decided it’s worth the
gamble.Which specific science
literacy would empower the average American consumer to properly evaluate the
specious claims made about Omega-3, Lutein and eye-health? What is eye-health anyway?

This issue is
not science literacy but rather science appreciation. We need to change the
American consciousness towards a greater appreciation for the creativity of
science, the artistry of its craftspeople and the fruits of their labor. An
appreciation for science would raise the admiration for the efforts of our best
and brightest in their field and envelope them with a greater sense of public
trust. Science appreciation would oblige science for input on issue of public
importance, because we would anxiously want to here what they had to say.

Raising the
American conciseness towards a greater appreciation of science will not be
accomplished via an endeavor to infuse a prescribed level of science literacy.
It is disingenuous to suggest the only way to appreciate Michelangelo’s David
is to learn how to sculpt, or the only way to be a true soccer fan is to have
played the game. A National science literacy is no more important to the appreciation
or quality of science than a National music literacy is to the appreciation or quality
of music. There will always be talented musicians to produce beautiful music
for the rest of us to enjoy and admire.

How do we
introduce today’s students to a love and appreciation of science? We can look
to the American love affair with professional sports and athletes for a
possible route to that appreciation.

The National
Football League currently enjoys a fan-base of 75 million in the United States
though a small number of these fans ever played
the game. They developed their love and appreciation for the sport without ever
participating in it. A lack of hands-on experience did not preclude them from
enjoying the game or admiring the players and coaches. How did this happen?

Imagine that high
school sports programs were administered like our National science programs, with
mandatory participation for all students, no tryouts and no cuts. All players
would be required to study and learn how to play all team positions. Each component
of the game would be coached in a prescribed sequence, (three weeks on defense
and four on strategy). Proficiency would be assessed by a variety of methods (written
exams, small group projects, or a creative multi-media presentation). Any failure
to become proficient at a position would be interpreted as a failure of the
coach, not a limitation of the player. Finally, each coach would conduct their
program for approximately 100 players every year, and work alone.

In this
scenario, football would quickly lose its current status as the top sport in interscholastic
competition. Colleges would stop spending time and money scouting and
recruiting. The local media would stop covering their hometown players and
season exploits. There would be no homecoming parade, no pep-rally. Most
important, players with the most potential would lose interest in the sport.
Players with the least potential would think the effort to learn and
participate, a waste of their time. The coaches would lose their “love of the
game”, grow disillusioned and become frustrated. Football would loose its base
of appreciative fans.

Now imagine
the reverse; administering National science programs within the current
framework of high school sports programs. There would be recruitment and
tryouts for only the best students, with most students not making the cut. Students
would be matched to various disciplines based on their specific proficiencies. Students
would participate in interscholastic competitions, complete with local media
coverage of the local “rising star”, and a homecoming parade with a pep-rally. What
do you believe would happen to the quality of our science programs? Would we
create appreciative fans?

Some may
argue that this critique is unfair, that high schools do require mandatory participation in team sports, in their
physical education programs, or that high schools do offer science competitions for the best and brightest in their
after school programs, such as the national Science Olympiad. But these science
programs don’t have the same stature as sports programs. They do not enjoy the
same budget. Does anyone really expect dodge ball in gym class to produce the
next great athlete, or adoring fans?

If we are to
raise the status of science, to encourage students to challenge themselves and
the limits of our understanding, and to make attractive the notion of public
adoration and trust, then our National agenda must be to foster a new love of
science, and admiration for scientists. They must be our superstars, chased by
the paparazzi, and sought after for TV appearances. We must all desire to see
the view from the shoulders of giants, and appreciate its beauty, even if we do
not understand what we are looking at.

2 comments:

The same holds true for science. At it's core, it is a simple process of evidence based inquiry. Even infants are shown to hypothesis test to learn about their world. The fundamentals of science take less than a day to learn. New inductees find discovery fun (just ask an elementary school kid). However, the emphasis quickly turns to the mastery. The expectation of proficiency by everyone is what drives our curriculum. No such expectation exists for sports because only the best survive. Imagine what a football class would look like if all students were required to take it and the expectation was proficiency for all. High School football would disappear overnight. on Science Literacy in the 21st Century